The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission brings charges against attorneys who have violated
the state’s rules for admission to the bar and Rules of Professional Conduct. The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications
brings charges against judges, judicial officers, or judicial candidates for misconduct. Details of attorneys’ and judges’
actions for which they are being disciplined by the Supreme Court will be included unless they are not a matter of public
record under the court’s rules.

Public reprimandLonnie M. Randolph, of East Chicago,received a public reprimand from the Indiana Supreme
Courtin an order filed Sept. 5, 2013.

Randolph was found to have violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 1.1: Failure to provide competent representation; Rule
1.3: Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness; Rule 3.1: Asserting a position for which there is no non-frivolous
basis in law or fact; Rule 1.5(a): Making an agreement for, charging, or collecting an unreasonable fee; and Rule 1.16(d):
Failure to refund an unearned fee upon termination of representation.

The court found that Randolph took money from a client for a sentence modification that he should have known was not possible,
and then continued to seek post-conviction relief for his client but failed to adequately instruct or communicate with him.
Disputes over fees ensued. Randolph has received two prior private reprimands, and he acknowledged his present misconduct
by resolving this matter by conditional agreement. Cost of proceedings are assessed against him.

Randolph is an Indiana state senator representing District 2.

Lori Ann Hittle, of Cicero,received a public reprimand from the Indiana Supreme Court
in an order filed Sept. 12, 2013.

Hittle was found to have violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 8.4(d) which prohibits engaging in conduct prejudicial
to the administration of justice. In April 2012, while serving as a part-time deputy prosecutor in Howard County, she pleaded
guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor. The order states that Hittle had no disciplinary history,
cooperated with the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, was remorseful, served a one-month suspension without pay from
her position as deputy prosecutor, and began individual substance abuse counseling prior to the filing of criminal charges.

SuspensionJerry L. Peteet, of Gary, was suspended from the practice of law in Indiana, effective immediately, by the
Indiana Supreme Court in an order filed Sept. 6, 2013.

Peteet was found guilty of the following felonies under federal law: racketeering and attempt to commit murder in aid of
racketeering activity. The interim suspension will continue until further order of the court or final resolution of any resulting
disciplinary action, provided no other suspension is in effect.

Earl C. Mullins Jr., of Louisville, Ky., was suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in Indiana,
beginning Oct. 18, 2013, by the Indiana Supreme Court in an order filed Sept. 6, 2013.

The suspension was reciprocal discipline imposed as the result of a suspension ordered by the Supreme Court of Kentucky.
Mullins was suspended from the practice of law in Kentucky for 90 days, with 30 days actively served and 60 days probated
for two years on the condition that he receive no further disciplinary charges. The Indiana court order states that if Mullins
is reinstated to practice in Kentucky, he may file a Motion for Reinstatement after his minimum 30-day active suspension in
Indiana pursuant to and in full compliance with Admission and Discipline Rule 23(28)(e), provided there is no other suspension
order in effect.

Joseph B. Barker, of Martinsville,was suspended for 30 days from the practice of law in
Indiana, effective Oct. 14, 2013, by the Indiana Supreme Court in an order filed Sept. 6, 2013.

During his representation of a father in a dissolution action, Barker wrote in a letter to the mother’s attorney that
the mother does not understand what laws mean, probably because she is an illegal alien. The court found “accusing Mother
of being in the country illegally is not legitimate advocacy concerning the legal matter at issue and served no substantial
purpose other than to embarrass or burden Mother.”

The Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission charged Barker with violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 4.4(a): Using
means in representing a client that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden a third person; and
8.4(g): Engaging in conduct, in a professional capacity, manifesting bias or prejudice based upon race, gender, religion,
national origin, disability, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, or similar factors, and this conduct was not legitimate
advocacy.

Barker will be automatically reinstated at the conclusion of the 30-day period provided no other suspensions are in effect.

Jeffrey D. Heck, of Carmel,was suspended from the practice of law in Indiana, effective
immediately, by the Indiana Supreme Court in an order filed Sept. 5, 2013. Heck was suspended for noncooperation with the
Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. The suspension will continue until the commission certifies that he has fully cooperated
with the investigation, the investigation or any disciplinary proceedings arising from the investigation are disposed of,
or until further order of the court.

James C. Kotz, of Munster, was suspended from the practice of law in Indiana, effective Sept. 12, the date
of the Indiana Supreme Court order. Kotz was found guilty of the following felony under federal law: interference with administration
of internal revenue laws. The interim suspension will continue until further order of the court or final resolution of any
resulting disciplinary action, provided no other suspension is in effect.

Resignation
Resignation from the Indiana bar byTimothy V. Clark, of Indianapolis,was
accepted by the Indiana Supreme Court in an order filed Sept. 6, 2013. Any attorney disciplinary proceedings pending were
dismissed.

The order states that Clark had an extensive history of discipline, including a warning that any future misconduct could
lead to a sanction up to and including disbarment. The order states that the misconduct charged in the verified complaint
would likely have resulted in permanent disbarment had he not chosen voluntary resignation from the bar. If Clark seeks reinstatement,
the misconduct admitted in the affidavit of resignation, as well as any other allegations of misconduct, will be addressed
in the reinstatement process.•

Conversations

0 Comments

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or
hateful.

You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.

Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content
are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.

No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are
relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.

We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag
a post simply because you disagree with it.